4 ms·
It’s rare to find someone argue that confirming only 25% of a massive amount of output enabled only because of the in place system is a good reason to eliminate
by abduhl 2y ago
It’s rare to find someone argue that confirming only 25% of a massive amount of output enabled only because of the in place system is a good reason to eliminate the system.
It’s kind of like saying “solar panels are only 20% efficient, so are you sure the sun is critical for the solar energy industry?”
- mike_hearn 2y agoThat's not what the stat says. It says only 25% of findings selected specifically for sounding important replicated for that particular company, not that 25% of output overall does. And replicable doesn't mean correct or useful, it's just the first step. There are lots of ways for a study to replicate yet be wrong. 25% is crazy low, but 11% is even lower. If someone told you things and 90% of the time they were wrong, you'd stop listening. Solar panels having low effectiveness would actually be a good argument against them, because although the solar industry needs solar panels the correct comparison is with the energy industry overall, which doesn't.